Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

but they have not his approbation. Nor had they the approbation of the Catholic Church; for he says, 'the Church condemned them as ignorant, and superstitious, and self-willed persons, and daily endeavoured to correct them as untoward children.'

tures of

kings and

about the

same time.

8. From which any rational and unprejudiced person will The piceasily conclude, that the first design of bringing pictures into churches, was only for ornament or history, and not for wor- bishops brought ship and adoration, as St. Austin and Philostorgius have de- into the clared. And this may be further confirmed from what Paulinus church himself and other writers assure us of, that at first the pictures of the living had their place in the church, as well as the dead, and bishops and kings were joined with the saints and martyrs. Paulinus's own picture was set, with St. Martin's, in the baptistery of the church built by Severus; and Paulinus 3 himself wrote two epigrams, by way of inscription, to be set by them, to teach men not to worship, but to imitate them, the one as a saint, the other as a penitent sinner. Baronius thinks Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, was the first that had this honour done him, anno 488; but Valesius 5 judiciously corrects

[blocks in formation]

4

Martinum veneranda viri testatur
imago :

Altera Paulinum forma refert hu-
milem.

Ille fidem exemplis et dictis fortibus
armat,

Ut meriti palmas intemerata ferat:
Iste docet, fusis redimens sua cri-
mina nummis,

Vilior ut sit res, quam sua cuique
salus.

4 An. 488, ex Suida, voce Aca-
cius. (t. 6. p. 442 e.) Tanti fuit hic
fastus et arrogantiæ, ut sineret suas
ipsius imagines adhuc viventis, quod
de nullo ante eum episcopo legitur,
in ecclesiis dedicari: qui enim ei
assentabantur, ipsius effigies in ec-
clesiis pingere vel affigere consue-
verunt, de quibus ista Suidas ha-
bet: Cum omnes ecclesias in sua
potestate haberet, solicitam curam
impendit his, qui præerant: quorum
sagaciores ejus imaginem in templis
consecrarunt, &c.

5 Not. in Theodor. Lect. 1. 2. (v. 3. p. 578. n. 2.) Scio quidem Baronium ad annum Christi 488, existi

[ocr errors]

his error, and observes it to have been customary long before; and the instance I have given in Paulinus sufficiently confirms his observation. Theodorus Lector speaks of the same honour done to Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, in the remark that he makes upon Timotheus, his successor; that whatever church he went into, he would never begin divine service till the images of Macedonius were first pulled down.' Suidas 7 takes notice of the picture of Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople, being joined with that of Christ, and Christ speaking to him in these words, 'Destroy this temple, and in thy successor's days I will raise it up again.' Damascens, a great advocate for images, pretends to carry this practice as high as Constantine, telling us, from Socrates, that Constantine ordered his own images to be set up in temples; but, as Mr. Spanheim has observed, there is something of fraud in the relation for Socrates 10 speaks not of Christian churches, but of Heathen temples, in which, having demolished their idols, he caused his own images to be placed in their room. But admitting it had been as Damascen pretends, it makes

masse, eas imagines Acacio positas fuisse, dum esset patriarcha; sed Baronium refellunt verba Malchi apud Suidam, qui ecclesiam illam juxta navale, in qua imago erat Acacii, tesselato opere fabricatam, [leg. fabricata] sub Gennadio patriarcha absolutam esse testatur: nec verum est, quod idem Baronius illic observat, primum ex patriarchis Acacium hunc honorem affectasse. Nam ex Suidæ loco a nobis allato aperte convincitur, eum morem Gennadii temporibus jam invaluisse.

6 L. 2. (v. 3. p. 578. 3.) "Оñоν & ἄν ποτε εἰσῆλθεν ἐν [τῇ] ἐκκλησίᾳ Τιμόθεος, εἰ μὴ πρότερον τὰς εἰκόνας Μακεδονίου κατέσπασε, τῆς λειτουργίας οὐκ ἤρχετο.

7 Voce Akákios. (t. 1. p. 118 a. 10.) Τοῦ γὰρ ἔργου παντὸς ἐπὶ Γενναδίου τελεσθέντος, εἰς τὸν ἐπιφανῆ τόπον ¿§eTúπwσav avTÒV TOû véw' kai μeταξὺ τοῦδε τὸν Σωτῆρα λέγοντα τῷ Γενναδίῳ, Λύσον τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μετὰ σὲ ἐγερῶ αὐτόν.

8 Orat. 3. de Imagin. p. 789. (t. I. p. 370 b.) Εκ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς

ἱστορίας Σωκράτους, βιβλίου πρώτου, κεφαλ. ιή. περὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ βασιλέως. Μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς Κωνσταντῖνος, ἐπιμελέστερος ὢν περὶ τὰ Χριστιανῶν, [al. τὰ περὶ χριστιανισμοῦ] ἀπεστράφη τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς θρησκείας, καὶ παύει [μὲν] τὰ μονομάχια· εἰκόνας δὲ τὰς ἰδίας ἐν τοῖς ναοῖς ἀπέθετο.

9 Hist. Imagin. s. 1. p. 14. (Oper. t. 2. [Miscell. Sacr. Antiq. 1. 6. c. 6.] p. 715. 23.).... Pessima intelligitur fides auctoris Orationis 3. de Imaginibus tributæ Damasceno, probaturi erectionem cultumque sacrarum imaginum etiam tempore Constantini M. ex his Socratis, 1. I. c. 18, Εἰκόνας δὲ τὰς ἰδίας ἐν τοῖς ναοῖς ἀπέθετο. Planum enim est, loqui Socratem de gentilium templis ac deorum delubris, in quibus, sublatis idolis, suas imagines substituit imperator. Nihil de imaginibus sacris Christi, Virginis, Sanctorumve. Nihil etiam de imaginibus ad cultum aut adorationem erectis.

10 L. 1. c. 18. juxt. Ed. Cantabr. 1720. p. 47. See the preceding note.

nothing to the purpose for which he alleges it, which was to prove the worship of images in churches.

9. For now, I presume, no one will suspect that the pictures But neither of bishops and kings were set up in churches to be worshipped, the living pictures of while they were living among other men, but only designed to or dead debe an ornament to the church, or a civil honour to the persons. worship. signed for And the same must be concluded of the pictures of the dead, since the first introducers of them intermixed their own pictures with them. But it must be owned that this superstition presently followed upon the setting up of pictures in churches; yet it was never approved, till the second Council of Nice, anno 787, made a decree in favour of it. Serenus, bishop of Marseilles, ordered all images to be defaced, and cast out of all the churches of his diocese; and though Gregory the Great 11 blamed him for this, and defended the use of pictures in churches as innocent, and useful for instruction of the vulgar, yet he equally condemns the worship and adoration of them. And when the Council of Nice had established it, in opposition to the Council of Constantinople of three hundred and thirty-eight bishops, held anno 754, who had before condemned it, the decrees of Nice were rejected by all the Western world, the Popes of Rome only excepted. The Council of Frankfort in Germany, the Council of Paris in France, and some other Councils in Britain, agreed unanimously to condemn them, and, for some hundred years after, the worship of images was not received in any of the three foresaid nations.

But it is as much beyond my design to pursue this history

11 L.9. Ep. 9. (CC. t. 5. p. 1434e.) Perlatum siquidem ad nos fuerat, quod, inconsiderato zelo succensus, sanctorum imagines, sub hac quasi excusatione, ne adorari debuissent, confregeris. Et quidem quia eas adorari vetuisses, omnino laudavimus; fregisse vero reprehendimus. .... Frangi non debuit, quod non ad adorandum in ecclesiis, sed ad instruendas solummodo mentes fuit nescientium collocatum.-L. 7. Ep. 110. (ibid. p. 1370 e. ult. lin.) Præterea indico, dudum ad nos pervenisse, quod fraternitas vestra, quosdam imaginum adoratores aspici

[blocks in formation]

No images

of God or

allowed in

churches

Nicene

Council.

any further, as it is needless, there being so many excellent discourses on this particular subject, especially those of Mr. Daille 12, Bp. Stillingfleet 13, and Spanheim 14, who have omitted nothing on this head that was necessary to answer the cavils of their Romish antagonists, or give satisfaction to a curious

reader.

10. All I shall add further therefore upon this subject is the Trinity only two observations, which Petavius himself 15 has made for us. The first is that the Ancients never allowed any pictures till after of God the Father or of the Trinity to be set up in their the second churches. For this he produces the testimonies of Origen 16, St. Ambrose 17, and St. Austin 18, who particularly pronounces it to be an impious thing for any Christian to set up any such image in the church, and much more to do it in his heart. Nay, Pope Gregory II. who was otherwise a great stickler for images, in that very Epistle 19 which he wrote to the Emperor Leo, to defend the worship of them, denies it to be lawful to make any image of the divine nature. And the second Council of Nice itself was against it, as is evident from the Epistles of Germanus, bishop of Constantinople 20, and John, bishop of

12 De Imagin. (Lugd. Bat. 1642. θειότητος φανταζόμενοι εἶναι, ἀπαί 8vo.) δευτοί εἰσι, καὶ ἀνδράποδα.

13 Defence of the Discourse of Idolatry, &c. (vol. 5. pp. 263, seqq. [See Answer to a Book intituled, Catholicks no Idolaters.]

14 Hist. Imagin. (Lugd. Bat. 1686. 8vo.)

15 De Incarnat. 1. 15. c. 14. n. I. (t. 5. p. 238.) In imaginum usu non nihil variare Catholicorum sententias animadvertimus: ac bifariam potissimum. Primum, quod plerique veterum corporis expertium rerum imagines damnandas judicarunt: solas vero Incarnati Verbi, ac Sanctorum licitas esse, et omnino corpore præditorum ; atque hæc opinio, etiam post ortum Iconoclastarum hæresis, apud acerrimos defensores religionis illius percrebuit.

16 Cont. Cels. 1. 6. (t. I. p. 640 b.) Κἄν τινες δὲ μὴ ταῦτά φασιν εἶναι τοὺς θεοὺς, ἀλλὰ μιμημάτων ἀληθινῶν [lege μιμήματα τῶν ἀληθινῶν] κἀκείνων σύμβολα· οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ οὗτοι, ἐν βαναύσων χερσὶ τὰ μιμήματα τῆς

17 In Ps. 118. Octon. 12. [corrige, Octon. 10.] (t. 1. p. 1095 e. n. 25.) Gentiles lignum adorant, quia Dei imaginem putant; sed invisibilis Dei imago non in eo est quod videtur, sed in eo utique quod non videtur.

18 De Fid. et Symbol. c. 7. (t. 6. p. 157 d.) Tale enim simulachrum nefas est Christiano in templo collocare, multo magis in corde nefarium est, &c.

19 Ep. i. ad Leont. in C. Nicæn. II. (CĈ. t. 7. p. 13 b.) Aià tí tòv Πατέρα τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἱστοροῦμεν, καὶ ζωγραφοῦμεν ; Ἐπειδὴ οὐκ οἴδαμεν τίς ἐστιν· καὶ Θεοῦ φύσιν ἀδύνατον ἱστορῆσαι, καὶ ζωγραφῆσαι· καὶ εἰ ἐθεασάμεθα, καὶ ἐγνωρίσαμεν, καθὼς τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, κἀκεῖνον ἂν εἴχομεν ἱστορῆσαι καὶ ζωγραφῆσαι.

20 Ep. 1. in Act. 4. C. Nicæn. II. (CC. ibid. p. 292 b.) Οὐδὲ γὰρ τῆς ἀοράτου θειότητος εἰκόνα, ἢ ὁμοίωμα,

Thessalonica, which are recited with approbation in the Acts of that Council. And Damascen, following the doctrine of the same Council, says 21, 'It is as great impiety, as it is folly, to make any image of the Divine Nature, which is invisible, incorporeal, incircumscriptible, and not to be figured by the art of man.' And therefore in all ancient history we never meet with any one instance of picturing God the Father, because it was supposed he never appeared in any visible shape, but only by a voice from heaven. Upon this account Paulinus, where he describes a symbolical representation of the three Divine Persons, made in the painting of a church, makes a lamb to be the symbol of Christ, and a dove the symbol of the Holy Ghost, but for God the Father 22 nothing but a voice from heaven. And this they did in compliance with that text in Deut. 4, 12, "The Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice." By which we see how much the present Church of Rome has outgone the first patrons even of image-worship itself, by allowing pictures of the Deity commonly in their temples, which the Ancients reckoned to be impious and absurd, and is acknowledged to be an abuse fit to be corrected by Cassander 23, though Petavius after all his concessions and acknowledgments of the novelty of the thing, and its contrariety to ancient custom, endeavours to find out some colour for the present practice. 11. His other acknowledgment of a difference between the Nor usually

ἢ σχῆμα, ἢ μορφήν τινα ἀποτυποῦμεν· ἣν οὐδὲ αὐτῶν τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων αἱ ὑπερέχουσαι τάξεις οὔτε κατανοεῖν, οὔτε ἐξιχνιάσαι, ὅλως ἰσχύουσιν.

21 De Fid. Orthodox. 1. 4. c. 17. [al. 16.] (t. 1. p. 280 c.) Ipòs dè τούτοις, τοῦ ἀοράτου, καὶ ἀσωμάτου, καὶ ἀπεριγράπτου, καὶ ἀσχηματίστου Θεοῦ, τίς δύναται ποιήσασθαι μίμημα; παραφροσύνης τοίνυν ἄκρας καὶ ἀσεβείας τὸ σχηματίζειν τὸ θεῖον.—Orat. i. [s. 8.] p. 703. (ibid. p. 310 d.) Πῶς εἰκονισθήσεται τὸ ἀόρατον ; πῶς εἰκασθήσεται τὸ ἀνείκαστον ; πῶς γραφήσεται τὸ ἄποσον καὶ ἀμέγεθες καὶ ἀόριστον; πῶς ποιωσθήσεται τὸ ἀνείδεον; πῶς χρωματουργηθήσεται τὸ dowμarov;-Örat. 2. [8. 7.] p. 732.

(ibid. p. 333. b.) Θεοῦ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ
ἀσωμάτου, καὶ ἀοράτου, καὶ ἀΰλου,
καὶ μήτε σχῆμα, μήτε περιγραφὴν,
μήτε κατάληψιν ἔχοντος, ἀδύνατον
Toleiv Eikóva.

22 Ep. 12. ad Sever. (p. 150.)
Pleno coruscat Trinitas mysterio ;
Stat Christus agno, vox Patris calo

tonat:

Et per columbam Spiritus Sanctus
fluit.

23 Consultat. sect. de Imagin. p.
179. (p. 980. lin. 12.) Illud quoque
inter abusus ponendum est, quod
etiam Divinitati in Trinitatis defor-
matione simulachrum effingitur,
quod veteres absurdum et nefarium
judicassent.

statues or

« ForrigeFortsett »